This article shows how content ownership changes with the new technologies and how we interact with these platforms affect major companies and their bottom dollar. I couldn't stop thinking about Youtube and its contribution to this corporation participates in robbing people and fans of their money. It seems like such a user friendly medium when in fact it may be the opposite. Russo, shows us that networks like the SciFi Network get fans to come to their website and create their own 'tribute film' to be aired on television. While this is acceptable, because they provided a tool kit that had restrictive parameters to it, it shows how companies give content to people as they see profitably see fit.
Youtube is platform that users are able to upload videos for the world to see and with all businesses money needs to be made. As many people know, Youtube just recently became profitable, but for who, not the users, Google. It's funny that we praise this site for all that they allow for us to do but at the same time they are just using the user’s hard work to make money for them. It's truly crazy to think about it, somewhere in a chair there's a CEO just kicking back smoking a cigar probably watching a Youtube video and profiting from others work, even the guy that came up with it.
As the author mentions fans are starting to wonder about their competition for works that they are creating and companies profiting off of it. It's going to be a hard battle because the more fans push back the more restrictive companies will most likely get and ultimately they do own the rights to the original content. I was thinking about the concept 'if it doesn't spread, it's dead' which was in the other article on television and thought that people could start setting up their own websites and blogs, which some have. Here they could post their own content and potentially it could catch on but also has the potential to fail.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Collective Expression
I like many of the commenter’s did not like the way this guy spoke (condescending tone) and the camera angle that he uses shows that he thinks he knows more than you. By the content of his video and mini lecture, I’m not sure that he does. First off, he most of what he uses are clips of others people’s work, okay fine, but say something that isn’t obvious about what they are doing. Secondly, he doesn’t pose good arguments for what Remix culture actually is and I don’t think that The Breakfast Club that he used were all that convincing. They changed the music and performed it, while yeah this is remixing I can see why many people that commented were not very impressed with his examples and thus thought it was just ‘kids having fun’ on a roof. I agree with him and the social aspect that these videos create, “collective expression”, he calls it. I think that it’s one of the pretty simple Remix examples and while it’s really cute, it’s not very impressive of a Remix. DJ Earworms Remixes and mash-up of United State of Pop 2009, is first a Remix in itself… I wonder if the government is going to come after him for that remix on the United States of America. This video is truly a Remix and new creation of previous content. It is simply copying and pasting however it is creating another message by using the parts in which the ‘sum is greater than its parts’. I think that a view commenter’s expressed said the hipster breakfast club remixes are just kids copying previous work and benefiting from original material. Something that Colbert tries to hammer down in his debate with Lessig. Their remixing process is of their own setting (Brooklyn) which no matter what they did would have represented some place. So, it’s hard to give them a tremendous credit for doing a great remixing job, which I don’t even think they were looking for. I think that the thing that we should focus on here, which may have been what Mr. Normative was going for, is the aspect of collective expression of our culture now and the ability to share common experiences using the same material. Therefore he should change the name of this video to modern collective expression through remixing.
What is Television?
This is a question that I have been thinking about of a little while. I'm glad this article posed the question because it is hard to tell what television is and is going to be. Like the author mentions, television can be appointment based which represents what television used to be. Now we don't need to rush home to watch a television show because of it can be accessed through DVR, internet postings, etc. I think that television now is constituted by shows that are produced by a studio or organization that is intended to be aired on a broadcast or cable channel. These TV's shows are then completed in a way that fit what we still manage to have as the TV format, 30 - 60 minute episodes and commercials. As the medium of television is encroached upon by technology like Google TV, Hulu, iTunes, etc. it will inevitable change.
What will it change to? Jenkins talks about the use of video games, comics, web episodes, and more ways that people can engage with given television shows. This will definitely start to become more prominent as networks and studios compete to get their shows recognized, because as he mentions, "If it doesn't spread, it's dead", and this is more true than ever. It you don't get your material out there and people don't consume it, there's no way that people will be able to find your show with all the other material that are flying around on the internet, television, and game consoles.
What will it change to? Jenkins talks about the use of video games, comics, web episodes, and more ways that people can engage with given television shows. This will definitely start to become more prominent as networks and studios compete to get their shows recognized, because as he mentions, "If it doesn't spread, it's dead", and this is more true than ever. It you don't get your material out there and people don't consume it, there's no way that people will be able to find your show with all the other material that are flying around on the internet, television, and game consoles.
An Accessory to the Machine
Halloween is the ultimate day of remixing!
While reading the Manovich reading and listening to our class talks it dawned on me that Halloween is a great example of how we have taken old and new material and used it to take an image and either replicate or add our own spin onto it. Like Manovich described with the process of changing the VCR to Windows Media Player, we are continually 'sampling and morphing' characters, superheroes, celebrities, objects, etc. into a modern take on how we perceive that given original source.
This article also poses the essential question of is or can anything ever be original. He used on example an "artist taking a material approach" like people did on Halloween, "and supporting the romantic ideal. He compares this artist to God creating the universe. First of all that's a really drastic statement, religion aside, and secondly when can we ever start with a blank canvas and material. Every material is a source and thus ever source is a means in which we are able to create something different from it. At what point to we draw the line between what we are completely changing with leaving a small component of its originality which will make it Remixing?
In this day and age it is much easier to see how we remix material because so much of it is "copy and paste", which makes me think are we going to continue to get farther and farther from 'originality' or will the definition of originality change and adapt with society? Can we start with a blank canvas and even then will the things that populate this canvas be of a truly original source. These are very interesting questions which are and will be challenged the further we become, "an accessory to the machine".
While reading the Manovich reading and listening to our class talks it dawned on me that Halloween is a great example of how we have taken old and new material and used it to take an image and either replicate or add our own spin onto it. Like Manovich described with the process of changing the VCR to Windows Media Player, we are continually 'sampling and morphing' characters, superheroes, celebrities, objects, etc. into a modern take on how we perceive that given original source.
This article also poses the essential question of is or can anything ever be original. He used on example an "artist taking a material approach" like people did on Halloween, "and supporting the romantic ideal. He compares this artist to God creating the universe. First of all that's a really drastic statement, religion aside, and secondly when can we ever start with a blank canvas and material. Every material is a source and thus ever source is a means in which we are able to create something different from it. At what point to we draw the line between what we are completely changing with leaving a small component of its originality which will make it Remixing?
In this day and age it is much easier to see how we remix material because so much of it is "copy and paste", which makes me think are we going to continue to get farther and farther from 'originality' or will the definition of originality change and adapt with society? Can we start with a blank canvas and even then will the things that populate this canvas be of a truly original source. These are very interesting questions which are and will be challenged the further we become, "an accessory to the machine".
Friday, October 29, 2010
History
Just realized after writing the first portion of the Midway paper how true it is that history repeats itself. I hope for the sake of 3-D and fans of the medium that it will reach its potential this this time!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Heh? Sound Unbound
I started reading this article and followed for a little while but still ended up lost in the silence...well almost silence; I can still here the hum of my computer cooling off as it imitates what my brain is feeling. I'm didn't immediately know how to connect this one to what we are currently talking about, Remix and fan participation, and to the greater scheme of the class. On thing that I did latch onto at first was his concept of everything that we interact now is produced by civilization, we take it form it add structure then produce something else. As he explains, this is a remix, and I can see how this connects to our remix culture and how fans take on mode of a civilized product and continue to build off of it so it does not remain static like architecture. It is liquid and continues to flow as fans participate with the the material.
When he asked for us to pause and listen to the sounds we hear, I was surprised at actually how silent it was. I only heard my computer, which is a civilized product. I could only image a person in NYC doing this exercise and how different it would be. Also, if someone did it in the country, I bet they would hear nature, which Miller doesn't factor in. He says, "That cricket playing in your nature soundtrack doesn't count". I still think that there are many people that do appreciate the natural and "un-remixed" or original products of life. We can see this in the medium form of documentaries, even though they are remixing a little portion of material. I see this form of media as the closest, while not perfect or close to original, way of people expressing their nature to capture the real, organic, or innate silence of life.
When he asked for us to pause and listen to the sounds we hear, I was surprised at actually how silent it was. I only heard my computer, which is a civilized product. I could only image a person in NYC doing this exercise and how different it would be. Also, if someone did it in the country, I bet they would hear nature, which Miller doesn't factor in. He says, "That cricket playing in your nature soundtrack doesn't count". I still think that there are many people that do appreciate the natural and "un-remixed" or original products of life. We can see this in the medium form of documentaries, even though they are remixing a little portion of material. I see this form of media as the closest, while not perfect or close to original, way of people expressing their nature to capture the real, organic, or innate silence of life.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Event
Will The Event be the new Lost?
NO. Dialogue is awful and expository. I wish that it would be a little less obvious with their plots and stop treating the viewer like we are a bunch of idiots that can't follow a complex plot. Maybe the writers are just bad and can't formulate a good plot without explaining everything as they go.
All this said, I will still watch this show to see what happens. I think the plot is decent and I'm curios to see how long I can actually stay somewhat interested in this film.
I context of Blogging, the book we are reading, I have checked The Event Wiki and the fan community is not large yet. As I watch I'll keep an eye on this blog to see how it develops and if there is fruitful comments and forums that start up.
Until next time... here's a link the wiki page
NO. Dialogue is awful and expository. I wish that it would be a little less obvious with their plots and stop treating the viewer like we are a bunch of idiots that can't follow a complex plot. Maybe the writers are just bad and can't formulate a good plot without explaining everything as they go.
All this said, I will still watch this show to see what happens. I think the plot is decent and I'm curios to see how long I can actually stay somewhat interested in this film.
I context of Blogging, the book we are reading, I have checked The Event Wiki and the fan community is not large yet. As I watch I'll keep an eye on this blog to see how it develops and if there is fruitful comments and forums that start up.
Until next time... here's a link the wiki page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)